Pregabalin for painful HIV neuropathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Chronic orofacial pain and pharmacological management: a clinical guide

Orofacial pain is a widespread health concern that significantly hinders an individual's capacity to engage in daily activities. This type of pain can be classified into three main categories: nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain, and nociplastic pain. Each category involves different mechanisms and requires specific treatment approaches. For optimal treatment of orofacial pain disorders, a multidisciplinary pain management approach is essential. This approach should integrate both nonpharmacological and pharmacological modalities to address the diverse underlying causes and manifestations of pain. In this review, we focus on the current evidence and advancements in the pharmacological management of chronic orofacial pain. We explored the effectiveness of different medications, their mechanisms of action, and their role within a comprehensive pain management plan.

A Meta-analysis Exploring the Efficacy of Neuropathic Pain Medication for Low Back Pain or Spine-Related Leg Pain: Is Efficacy Dependent on the Presence of Neuropathic Pain?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Highly variable pain mechanisms in people with low back pain or spine-related leg pain might contribute to inefficacy of neuropathic pain medication. This meta-analysis aimed to determine how neuropathic pain is identified in clinical trials for people taking neuropathic pain medication for low back pain or spine-related leg pain and whether subgrouping based on the presence of neuropathic pain influences efficacy.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, CINAHL [EBSCO], APA PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to 14 May, 2024. Randomized and crossover trials comparing first-line neuropathic pain medication for people with low back pain or spine-related leg pain to placebo or usual care were included. Two independent authors extracted data. Random-effects meta-analyses of all studies combined, and pre-planned subgroup meta-analyses based on the certainty of neuropathic pain (according to the neuropathic pain Special Interest Group [NeuPSIG] neuropathic pain grading criteria) were completed. Certainty of evidence was judged using the grading of recommendations assessment development and evaluation [GRADE] framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven included studies reported on 3619 participants. Overall, 33% of studies were judged unlikely to include people with neuropathic pain, 26% remained unclear. Only 41% identified people with possible, probable, or definite neuropathic pain. For pain, general analyses revealed only small effects at short term (mean difference [MD] - 9.30 [95% confidence interval [CI] - 13.71, - 4.88], I2 = 87%) and medium term (MD - 5.49 [95% CI - 7.24, - 3.74], I2 = 0%). Subgrouping at short term revealed studies including people with definite or probable neuropathic pain showed larger effects on pain (definite; MD - 16.65 [95% CI - 35.95, 2.65], I2 = 84%; probable; MD - 10.45 [95% CI - 14.79, - 6.12], I2 = 20%) than studies including people with possible (MD - 5.50 [95% CI - 20.52, 9.52], I2 = 78%), unlikely (MD - 6.67 [95% CI - 10.58, 2.76], I2 = 0%), or unclear neuropathic pain (MD - 8.93 [95% CI - 20.57, 2.71], I2 = 96%). Similarly, general analyses revealed negligible effects on disability at short term (MD - 3.35 [95% CI - 9.00, 2.29], I2 = 93%) and medium term (MD - 4.06 [95% CI - 5.63, - 2.48], I2 = 0%). Sub-grouping at short term revealed larger effects in studies including people with definite/probable neuropathic pain (MD - 9.25 [95% CI - 12.59, - 5.90], I2 = 2%) compared with those with possible/unclear/unlikely neuropathic pain (MD -1.57 [95% CI - 8.96, 5.82] I2 = 95%). Medium-term outcomes showed a similar trend, but were limited by low numbers of studies. Certainty of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies using neuropathic pain medication for low back pain or spine-related leg pain fail to adequately consider the presence of neuropathic pain. Meta-analyses suggest neuropathic pain medication may be most effective in people with low back pain or spine-related leg pain with a definite/probable neuropathic pain component. However, the low to very low certainty of evidence and poor identification of neuropathic pain in most studies prevent firm recommendations.

Progress in Pathological and Therapeutic Research of HIV-Related Neuropathic Pain

HIV-related neuropathic pain (HRNP) is a neurodegeneration that gradually develops during the long-term course of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and manifests as abnormal sock/sleeve-like symmetrical pain and nociceptive hyperalgesia in the extremities, which seriously reduces patient quality of life. To date, the pathogenesis of HRNP is not completely clear. There is a lack of effective clinical treatment for HRNP and it is becoming a challenge and hot spot for medical research. In this study, we conducted a systematic review of the progress of HRNP research in recent years including (1) the etiology, classification and clinical symptoms of HRNP, (2) the establishment of HRNP pathological models, (3) the pathological mechanisms underlying HRNP from three aspects: molecules, signaling pathways and cells, (4) the therapeutic strategies for HRNP, and (5) the limitations of recent HRNP research and the future research directions and prospects of HRNP. This detailed review provides new and systematic insight into the pathological mechanism of HRNP, which establishes a theoretical basis for the future exploitation of novel target drugs. HIV infection, antiretroviral therapy and opioid abuse contribute to the etiology of HRNP with symmetrical pain in both hands and feet, allodynia and hyperalgesia. The pathogenesis involves changes in cytokine expression, activation of signaling pathways and neuronal cell states. The therapy for HRNP should be patient-centered, integrating pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments into multimodal intervention.

Personalized treatment of neuropathic pain: Where are we now?

BACKGROUND

The treatment of neuropathic pain remains a major unmet need that the development of personalized and refined treatment strategies may contribute to address.

DATABASE

In this narrative review, we summarize the various approaches based on objective biomarkers or clinical markers that could be used.

RESULTS

In principle, the validation of objective biomarkers would be the most robust approach. However, although promising results have been reported demonstrating a potential value of genomics, anatomical or functional markers, the clinical validation of these markers has only just begun. Thus, most of the strategies documented to date have been based on the development of clinical markers. In particular, many studies have suggested that the identification of specific subgroups of patients presenting with specific combinations of symptoms and signs would be a relevant approach. Two main approaches have been used to identify relevant sensory profiles: quantitative sensory testing and specific patients reported outcomes based on description of pain qualities.

CONCLUSION

We discuss here the advantages and limitations of these approaches, which are not mutually exclusive.

SIGNIFICANCE

Recent data indicate that various new treatment strategies based on predictive biological and/or clinical markers could be helpful to better personalized and therefore improve the management of neuropathic pain.

Profiling migraine patients according to clinical and psychophysical characteristics: a cluster analysis approach

AIM

This study aims to profile migraine patients according clinical and psychophysical characteristics.

METHOD

In this observational study, two cohorts of migraine patients(episodic/chronic) were included. Cohort-1: ictal/perictal phase; Cohort-2: interictal phase.The following variables were assessed: headache frequency; disability; cervical active range of motion(AROM) in flexion, extension, right/left lateral flexion, right/left rotation; pressure-pain threshold(PPT) over: temporalis, two cervical areas(C1/C4 vertebral segments), and two distal pain-free areas(hand/leg). Cluster analysis was performed using the K-means algorithm. Differences across clusters were investigated.

RESULTS

Cohort-1: 100 patients were included, and two clusters were identified. Cluster-1.1 (19%), Cluster-1.2 (81%). Cluster 1.1 had a higher percentage of men (P = .037) and higher disability (P = .003) compared to Clusters 1.2. Cluster 1.2 had reduced AROM in flexion, extension, and left/right lateral flexion (P < .037), and lower PPT value in all areas (P < .001) compared to Cluster 1.1. Cohort-2: 98 patients were included and three clusters were identified. Cluster-2.1(18%), Cluster-2.2(45%), and Cluster-2.3(37%). Cluster-2.1 had a higher percentage of men compared to clusters-2.2 and 2.3 (P = .009). Cluster-2.3 had higher headache frequency, and disability compared to Cluster-2.2 (P < .006), and higher disability compared to Cluster-2.1 (P = .010). Cluster-2.3 had reduced AROM in all directions compared to Clusters-2.1 and 2.2 (P < .029). Clusters-2.2 and 2.3 have lower PPT values in all areas compared to Cluster-1.1 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In the Ictal/perictal phase, two clusters were identified according to clinical and psychophysical characteristics, with one group showing no psychophysical impairment and one with increased pain-sensitivity and cervical musculoskeletal-dysfunctions.In the interictal phase, three clusters could be identified, with one group showing no psychophysical impairment, one increased pain-sensitivity, and one increased pain sensitivity and cervical musculoskeletal-dysfunctions.

Psychophysics of Pain: A Methodological Introduction

For over 100 years, psychophysics ..÷ the scientific study between physical stimuli and sensation ... has been successfully employed in numerous scientific and healthcare disciplines, as an objective measure of sensory phenomena. This manuscript provides an overview of fundamental psychophysical concepts, emphasizing pain and research application..÷defining common terms, methods, and procedures.Psychophysics can provide systematic and objective measures of sensory perception that can be used by nursing scientists to explore complex, subjective phenomena..÷such as pain perception. While there needs to be improved standardization of terms and techniques, psychophysical approaches are diverse and may be tailored to address or augment current research paradigms. The interdisciplinary nature of psychophysics..÷like nursing..÷provides a unique lens for understanding how our perceptions are influenced by measurable sensations. While the quest to understand human perception is far from complete, nursing science has an opportunity to contribute to pain research by using the techniques and methods available through psychophysical procedures.

Advances and challenges in neuropathic pain: a narrative review and future directions

Over the past few decades, substantial advances have been made in neuropathic pain clinical research. An updated definition and classification have been agreed. Validated questionnaires have improved the detection and assessment of acute and chronic neuropathic pain; and newer neuropathic pain syndromes associated with COVID-19 have been described. The management of neuropathic pain has moved from empirical to evidence-based medicine. However, appropriately targeting current medications and the successful clinical development of drugs acting on new targets remain challenging. Innovative approaches to improving therapeutic strategies are required. These mainly encompass rational combination therapy, drug repurposing, non-pharmacological approaches (such as neurostimulation techniques), and personalised therapeutic management. This narrative review reports historical and current perspectives regarding the definitions, classification, assessment, and management of neuropathic pain and explores potential avenues for future research.

Critical Pronociceptive Role of Family 2 Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels in a Novel Mouse Model of HIV-Associated Sensory Neuropathy

Some people living with HIV present painful sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) that is pharmacoresistant, sex-associated, and a major source of morbidity. Since the specific mechanisms underlying HIV-SN are not well understood, the aim of our study was to characterize a novel model of painful HIV-SN by combining the HIV-1 gp120 protein and the antiretroviral stavudine (d4T) in mice and to investigate the pronociceptive role of the family 2 voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) α1 subunit (Cav2.X channels) in such a model. HIV-SN was induced in male and female C57BL/6 mice by administration of gp120 and/or d4T and detected by a battery of behavior tests and by immunohistochemistry. The role of Cav2.X channels was assessed by the treatment with selective blockers and agonists as well as by mRNA detection. Repeated administration with gp120 and/or d4T produced long-lasting touch-evoked painful-like behaviors (starting at 6 days, reaching a maximum on day 13, and lasting up to 28 days after treatment started), with a greater intensity in female mice treated with the combination of gp120 + d4T. Moreover, gp120 + d4T treatment reduced the intraepidermal nerve fibers and well-being of female mice, without altering other behaviors. Mechanistically, gp120 + d4T treatment induced Cav2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 transcriptional increases in the dorsal root ganglion and the Cav2.X agonist-induced nociception. Accordingly, intrathecal selective Cav2.2 blockade presented longer and better efficacy in reversing the hyperalgesia induced by gp120 + d4T treatment compared with Cav2.1 or Cav2.3, but also presented the worst safety (inducing side effects at effective doses). We conclude that the family 2 calcium channels (Cav2.X) exert a critical pronociceptive role in a novel mouse model of HIV-SN.

The safety and efficacy of gabapentinoids in the management of neuropathic pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There are increasing concerns regarding the abusive potential of gabapentinoids putting at risk patients with neuropathic pain requiring long-term pain management. The evidence to support this is rather inconcusive.

AIM

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gabapentinoids in the management of neuropathic pain with a focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and categorising the side effects according to the body systems they were affecting.

METHOD

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycoINFO, and CINAHL (EBSCO), and included RCTs to identify and critically appraise studies investigating safety and therapeutic effects of gabapentionoids in adults with neuropathic pain. Data extraction was conducted using an established Cochrane form and the risk-of-bias tool was used in the assessment of quality.

RESULTS

50 studies (12,398 participants) were included. The majority of adverse events pertained to the nervous system (7 effects) or psychiatric (3 effects) disorders. There were more adverse effects reported with pregabalin (36 effects) than with gabapentin (22 effects). Six pregabalin studies reported euphoria as a side effect, while no studies reported euphoria with gabapentin. This was the only side effect that may correlate with addictive potential. Gabapentioids were reported to significantly reduce pain compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Despite RCTs documenting the adverse events of gabapentionoids on the nervous system, there was no evidence of gabapentinoid use leading to addiction, suggesting an urgent need to design studies investigating their abusive potential.

Optimizing and Accelerating the Development of Precision Pain Treatments for Chronic Pain: IMMPACT Review and Recommendations

Large variability in the individual response to even the most-efficacious pain treatments is observed clinically, which has led to calls for a more personalized, tailored approach to treating patients with pain (ie, "precision pain medicine"). Precision pain medicine, currently an aspirational goal, would consist of empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for specific patients (ie, targeting the right treatment, in the right dose, to the right patient, at the right time). Answering this question of "what works for whom" will certainly improve the clinical care of patients with pain. It may also support the success of novel drug development in pain, making it easier to identify novel treatments that work for certain patients and more accurately identify the magnitude of the treatment effect for those subgroups. Significant preliminary work has been done in this area, and analgesic trials are beginning to utilize precision pain medicine approaches such as stratified allocation on the basis of prespecified patient phenotypes using assessment methodologies such as quantitative sensory testing. Current major challenges within the field include: 1) identifying optimal measurement approaches to assessing patient characteristics that are most robustly and consistently predictive of inter-patient variation in specific analgesic treatment outcomes, 2) designing clinical trials that can identify treatment-by-phenotype interactions, and 3) selecting the most promising therapeutics to be tested in this way. This review surveys the current state of precision pain medicine, with a focus on drug treatments (which have been most-studied in a precision pain medicine context). It further presents a set of evidence-based recommendations for accelerating the application of precision pain methods in chronic pain research. PERSPECTIVE: Given the considerable variability in treatment outcomes for chronic pain, progress in precision pain treatment is critical for the field. An array of phenotypes and mechanisms contribute to chronic pain; this review summarizes current knowledge regarding which treatments are most effective for patients with specific biopsychosocial characteristics.

Test-retest reliability of a simple bedside-quantitative sensory testing battery for chronic neuropathic pain

Introduction

The sensory phenotype is believed to provide information about the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and to be used in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. However, the use of standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocols is limited due to high expenditures of time and costs. Thus, a simple bedside-QST battery was recently developed showing good agreement when compared with laboratory QST. The aim of this study was to preliminary validate this bedside-QST protocol.

Methods

Patients experiencing chronic pain with neuropathic features (n = 60) attended 3 visits. During the first visit, laboratory QST and bedside-QST were performed by the same trained investigator. Three hours and 3 weeks later, bedside-QST was repeated. Patients completed questionnaires regarding their pain (intensity, quality), depression/anxiety, and quality of life. Test-retest reliability and convergent/divergent validity were investigated.

Results

Most of the bedside-QST parameters, including also those recommended in our first study as being indicative for sensory phenotypes, revealed a moderate to excellent test-retest reliability. Overall, results for short-term reliability and interval-scaled parameters were slightly better. Most of the bedside-QST parameters did not correlate with the depression and anxiety score, suggesting a good divergent validity.

Conclusions

Bedside-QST has good criterion and divergent validity as well as reliability. This battery consists of 5 low-cost devices that can be quickly and easily used to characterize the sensory phenotype of patients with neuropathic pain. A combination of bedside-QST parameters can be used to investigate patients' subgroups with specific pathophysiological mechanisms and to identify treatment responders.

A Comparison of Self-reported Pain Measures Between Sensory Phenotypes in HIV-associated Sensory Neuropathy

Painful HIV-associated neuropathy (HIV-SN) is a prevalent co-morbidity of HIV infection. Sensory phenotyping, using quantitative sensory testing (QST) could allow for improved stratification to guide personalized treatment. However, previous methods of QST interpretation have demonstrated limited association with self-reported pain measures. This study sought to identify differences in self-reported pain measures between composite QST-derived sensory phenotypes, and to examine any differences in participants reporting multi-site, multi-etiology chronic pain. In this cross-sectional observational study of participants with HIV (n = 133), individuals were allocated to neuropathy and neuropathic pain groups through clinical assessment and nerve conduction testing. They completed symptom-based questionnaires and underwent standardized QST. Participants were assigned, by pre-determined algorithm, to a QST-derived sensory phenotype. Symptoms were compared between sensory phenotypes. Symptom characteristics and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory scores differed between QST-derived sensory phenotypes: 'sensory loss' was associated with more paroxysmal and paraesthetic symptoms compared to 'thermal hyperalgesia' and 'healthy' phenotypes (P = .023-0.001). Those with painful HIV-SN and additional chronic pain diagnoses were more frequently allocated to the 'mechanical hyperalgesia' phenotype compared to those with painful HIV-SN alone (P = .006). This study describes heterogeneous sensory phenotypes in people living with HIV. Differences in self-reported pain outcomes between sensory phenotypes has the potential to guide future stratified trials and eventually more targeted therapy. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents quantitative sensory testing derived phenotypes, thought to reflect differing pathophysiological pain mechanisms and relates them to self-reported pain measures in people with HIV infection. This could help clinicians stratify patients to individualize analgesic interventions more effectively.

Precision Medicine in Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain is a common chronic pain condition that is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The multitude of sensory negative and positive sensations and associated comorbidities have a major impact on quality of life of affected patients. Current treatment options often only lead to a partial pain relief or are even completely ineffective. In addition, many clinical trials for the development of new drugs have not met the primary endpoint. Therefore, there is still an unmet clinical need in neuropathic pain syndromes. One reason for this therapeutic dilemma could be the heterogeneity of neuropathic pain with a variety of pathophysiological pain mechanisms that are expressed differently in each patient regardless of the underlying disease etiology. Reclassification of neuropathic pain syndromes therefore focuses on the underlying mechanisms of pain development rather than the disease etiology. A priori stratification of patients based on these individual mechanisms could allow the identification of potential treatment responders and thus realize the concept of a mechanism-based treatment. As no biomarkers for pain mechanisms have been discovered yet, one has to rely on surrogate markers that are thought to be closely related to these mechanisms. In this chapter, we present promising predictive biomarkers, focusing in particular on sensory symptoms and signs assessed by patient-reported outcome measures and sensory testing, and discuss how these tools might be used in clinical trials in the future.

Predicting Treatment Response with Sensory Phenotyping in Post-Traumatic Neuropathic Pain

OBJECTIVE

Currently available treatments for neuropathic pain are only modestly efficacious when assessed in randomized clinical trials and work for only some patients in the clinic. Induced-pain or gain-of-function phenotypes have been shown to predict response to analgesics (vs placebos) in patients with neuropathic pain. However, the predictive value of these phenotypes has never been studied in post-traumatic neuropathic pain.

METHODS

Mixed-effects models for repeated measures were used to evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin vs placebo in subgroups with induced-pain phenotypes (i.e., hyperalgesia or allodynia) in data from a recent, multinational randomized clinical trial (N = 539) that identified phenotypic subgroups through the use of a structured clinical exam.

RESULTS

The difference in mean pain score between the active and placebo groups (i.e., delta) after 15 weeks of treatment for the subgroup with hyperalgesia was -0.76 (P = 0.001), compared with 0.19 (P = 0.47) for the subgroup that did not have hyperalgesia. The treatment-by-phenotype interaction, which tests whether subgroups have statistically different treatment responses, was significant (P = 0.0067). The delta for the subgroup with allodynia was -0.31 (P = 0.22), compared with -0.30 (P = 0.22) for the subgroup that did not have allodynia (treatment-by-phenotype interaction P = 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that hyperalgesia, but not allodynia, predicts response to pregabalin in patients with chronic post-traumatic neuropathic pain. This study extends the growing data supporting the utility of induced-pain phenotypes to predict response to analgesics in post-traumatic neuropathic pain. Sensory phenotyping in large, multisite trials through the use of a structured clinical exam has the potential to accelerate the development of new analgesics and improve the generalizability of clinical trial results.

Neuropathogenesis of HIV and emerging therapeutic targets

INTRODUCTION

HIV infection causes a wide range of neurological complications, many of which are among the most common complications of chronic HIV infection in the era of combined antiretroviral therapy. These neurological conditions arise due to complex interactions between HIV viral proteins and neuronal and glial cells that lead to the activation of various inflammatory and neurotoxic pathways across the nervous system.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the current literature on the pathogenesis and clinical manifestations of neurological injuries associated with HIV in the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nervous system. Molecular pathways relevant for possible therapeutic targets or advancements are emphasized. Gaps in knowledge and current challenges in therapeutic design are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Several challenges exist in the development of therapeutic targets for HIV-associated cognitive impairments. However, recent developments in drug delivery systems and treatment strategies are encouraging. Treatments for HIV-associated pain and peripheral sensory neuropathies currently consist of symptomatic management, but a greater understanding of their pathogenesis can lead to the development of targeted molecular therapies and disease-modifying therapies. HIV-associated autonomic dysfunction may affect the course of systemic disease via disrupted neuro-immune interactions; however, more research is needed to facilitate our understanding of how these processes present clinically.

Post-acute sensory neurological sequelae in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: the COVID-PN observational cohort study

ABSTRACT

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can cause neurological sequelae after the resolution of symptomatic COVID-19 illness, but the occurrence of peripheral neuropathy symptoms and cranial nerve dysfunction is unknown. This study aimed to characterize the occurrence and severity of pain and peripheral neuropathy symptoms in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.An observational cohort study included adults tested for a SARS-CoV-2 infection at an academic medical center (assigned as CV+ or control, based on test results). 30-90 days after the index SARS-CoV-2 test, patients completed a web-based questionnaire assessing pain, peripheral neuropathy-related sensory symptoms, and symptoms in the distribution of cranial nerves (current symptoms, symptoms at testing and two weeks thereafter). Univariate analyses compared the outcomes between the groups. Multivariable analysis was used to determine the odds for neuropathy symptoms after adjusting for key baseline variables.1556 participants were included: 542 CV+ and 1014 controls. CV+ patients reported a higher occurrence of peripheral neuropathy symptoms in the extremities anytime within 90 days post-infection (28.8% vs 12.9%, OR [95%CI] =2.72 [2.10-3.54]), as well as such symptoms persisting up to 90 days after infection (6.1% vs 1.9%, OR=3.39 [1.91-6.03]). The occurrence of pain in the extremities was higher in the CV+ group (24.2% vs 9.8%, OR=2.95 [2.21-3.91]). SARS-CoV-2 infection was also associated with higher occurrence of peripheral neuropathy symptoms, after adjusting for the history of chronic pain and neuropathy (OR=3.19 [2.37-4.29]. The results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection was independently associated with an increased risk of pain and peripheral neuropathy symptoms.

Pharmacologic and Non-Pharmacologic Treatments for Chronic Pain Used by Patients with Pain, HIV, and Depression

The objective of this study was to understand pain treatment utilization, perceived efficacy, and differences in utilization by gender, clinic site, chronicity of pain, pain severity, and depression severity among people living with HIV (PLWH), chronic pain, and elevated depression symptoms. Participants included 187 PLWH at three HIV clinics in the U.S. Overall, 85% of participants reported taking a pain medication. One quarter (25%) reported non-pharmacological professional treatments for pain (e.g., massage, physical therapy), 60% reported mind-body treatments, including exercise, meditation, and yoga, and 62% reported other non-pharmacological self-administered treatments (e.g., heat/cold). Most pain treatments were considered "slightly helpful" or "moderately helpful." Non-pharmacological self-administered treatments were more commonly used among women than men and among individuals with constant vs. intermittent pain. Further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of the preferred analgesic modalities of PLWH.

The Interplay Between Neuroinfections, the Immune System and Neurological Disorders: A Focus on Africa

Neurological disorders related to neuroinfections are highly prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), constituting a major cause of disability and economic burden for patients and society. These include epilepsy, dementia, motor neuron diseases, headache disorders, sleep disorders, and peripheral neuropathy. The highest prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is in SSA. Consequently, there is a high prevalence of neurological disorders associated with HIV infection such as HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders, motor disorders, chronic headaches, and peripheral neuropathy in the region. The pathogenesis of these neurological disorders involves the direct role of the virus, some antiretroviral treatments, and the dysregulated immune system. Furthermore, the high prevalence of epilepsy in SSA (mainly due to perinatal causes) is exacerbated by infections such as toxoplasmosis, neurocysticercosis, onchocerciasis, malaria, bacterial meningitis, tuberculosis, and the immune reactions they elicit. Sleep disorders are another common problem in the region and have been associated with infectious diseases such as human African trypanosomiasis and HIV and involve the activation of the immune system. While most headache disorders are due to benign primary headaches, some secondary headaches are caused by infections (meningitis, encephalitis, brain abscess). HIV and neurosyphilis, both common in SSA, can trigger long-standing immune activation in the central nervous system (CNS) potentially resulting in dementia. Despite the progress achieved in preventing diseases from the poliovirus and retroviruses, these microbes may cause motor neuron diseases in SSA. The immune mechanisms involved in these neurological disorders include increased cytokine levels, immune cells infiltration into the CNS, and autoantibodies. This review focuses on the major neurological disorders relevant to Africa and neuroinfections highly prevalent in SSA, describes the interplay between neuroinfections, immune system, neuroinflammation, and neurological disorders, and how understanding this can be exploited for the development of novel diagnostics and therapeutics for improved patient care.

Prediction of Individual Analgesic Response to Intravenous Lidocaine in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVES

Intravenous lidocaine can alleviate painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in some patients. Whether quantitative sensory testing (QST) can identify treatment responders has not been prospectively tested.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial comparing intravenous lidocaine to normal saline (placebo) for painful DPN. Thirty-four participants with painful DPN were enrolled and administered intravenous lidocaine (5 mg/kg ideal body weight) or placebo as a 40-minute infusion, after a battery of QST parameters were tested on the dorsal foot, with a 3-week washout period between infusions.

RESULTS

Thirty-one participants completed both study sessions and were included in the final analysis. Lidocaine resulted in a 51% pain reduction 60 to 120 minutes after infusion initiation, as assessed on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale, while placebo resulted in a 33.5% pain reduction (difference=17.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9%-33.3%, P=0.03). Neither mechanical pain threshold, heat pain threshold, or any of the other measured QST parameters predicted the response to treatment. Lidocaine administration reduced mean Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory paresthesia/dysesthesia scores when compared with placebo by 1.29 points (95% CI, -2.03 to -0.55, P=0.001), and paroxysmal pain scores by 0.84 points (95% CI, -1.62 to -0.56, P=0.04), without significant changes in burning, pressing or evoked pain subscores.

DISCUSSION

While some participants reported therapeutic benefit from lidocaine administration, QST measures alone were not predictive of response to treatment. Further studies, powered to test more complex phenotypic interactions, are required to identify reliable predictors of response to pharmacotherapy in patients with DPN.

Central sensitisation in chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia; a case control study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) are both complex conditions that are challenging to treat. This may be related to an incomplete understanding of their pathophysiology, itself obfuscated by their heterogeneity. The symptomatic overlap between them and their common comorbidity suggests a shared vulnerability, which might be explained by central sensitisation.

METHODS

19 CFS cases, 19 FM cases and 20 age and sex matched healthy controls (HC) were recruited primarily from secondary care clinics in London. Those with other pain disorders, psychiatric diagnoses and those taking centrally acting or opiate medications were excluded. Participants were asked to abstain from alcohol and over the counter analgaesia 48 h prior to assessment by static and dynamic quantitative sensory tests, including measures of temporal summation (TS) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM).

RESULTS

CS, as defined by the presence of both enhanced TS and inefficient CPM, was present in 16 (84%) CFS cases, 18 (95%) FM cases, and none of the HC (p < 0.001). Pressure pain thresholds were lower in CFS (Median222kPaIQR 146-311; p = 0.04) and FM cases (Median 189 kPa; IQR 129-272; p = 0.003) compared to HC (Median 311 kPa; IQR 245-377). FM cases differed from HC in cold-induced (FM = 22.6 °C (15.3-27.7) vs HC = 14.2 °C (9.0-20.5); p = 0.01) and heat-induced (FM = 38.0 °C (35.2-44.0) vs HC = 45.3 °C (40.1-46.8); p = 0.03) pain thresholds, where CFS cases did not.

CONCLUSION

Central sensitisation may be a common endophenotype in chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Further research should address whether central sensitisation is a cause or effect of these disorders.

Neuropharmacological basis for multimodal analgesia in chronic pain

Managing chronic pain remains a major unmet clinical challenge. Patients can be treated with a range of interventions, but pharmacotherapy is the most common. These include opioids, antidepressants, calcium channel modulators, sodium channel blockers, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Many of these drugs target a particular mechanism; however, chronic pain in many diseases is multifactorial and induces plasticity throughout the sensory neuroaxis. Furthermore, comorbidities such as depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances worsen quality of life. Given the complexity of mechanisms and symptoms in patients, it is unsurprising that many fail to achieve adequate pain relief from a single agent. The efforts to develop novel drug classes with better efficacy have not always proved successful; a multimodal or combination approach to analgesia is an important strategy in pain control. Many patients frequently take more than one medication, but high-quality evidence to support various combinations is often sparse. Ideally, combining drugs would produce synergistic action to maximize analgesia and reduce side effects, although sub-additive and additive analgesia is still advantageous if additive side-effects can be avoided. In this review, we discuss pain mechanisms, drug actions, and the rationale for mechanism-led treatment selection.Abbreviations: COX - cyclooxygenase, CGRP - calcitonin gene-related peptide, CPM - conditioned pain modulation, NGF - nerve growth factor, NNT - number needed to treat, NMDA - N-methyl-d-aspartate, NSAID - nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, TCA - tricyclic antidepressant, SNRI - serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, QST - quantitative sensory testing.

A Review of the Clinical and Therapeutic Implications of Neuropathic Pain

Understanding neuropathic pain presents several challenges, given the various mechanisms underlying its pathophysiological classification and the lack of suitable tools to assess its diagnosis. Furthermore, the response of this pathology to available drugs is still often unpredictable, leaving the treatment of neuropathic pain still questionable. In addition, the rise of personalized treatments further extends the ramified classification of neuropathic pain. While a few authors have focused on neuropathic pain clustering, by analyzing, for example, the presence of specific TRP channels, others have evaluated the presence of alterations in microRNAs to find tailored therapies. Thus, this review aims to synthesize the available evidence on the topic from a clinical perspective and provide a list of current demonstrations on the treatment of this disease.

HIV Neuropathy-a Review of Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article is a systematic review of data from 2018 to 2020 regarding information from publications on epidemiologic, diagnostic, and therapeutic advancements in human immunodeficiency virus-associated peripheral neuropathy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The epidemiology/pathology of HIV neuropathy is discussed. Diagnostics includes skin wrinkling-eutectic mixture of local anesthetic test and neurologic examinations. Therapeutic interventions include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management as well as self-management strategies. Peripheral neuropathy continues to affect the lives of persons living with HIV. First-line treatment with pregabalin or gabapentin for HIV neuropathic pain has limited data on adequate response. Exercise and self-management strategies may provide benefit in pain reduction. Continuing research on risk factors and biomarkers for HIV-related peripheral neuropathy will be critical for future diagnostic and therapeutic agents.

Cohort study protocol to characterize the incidence and severity of neuropathic pain in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

In this protocol for a cohort study, an approach to characterize new-onset or worsening neuropathic pain in patients with COVID-19 is described.

Introduction and Objectives:

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in patients experiencing symptoms that include neurological dysfunction. As many viral infections are associated with neuropathy, the aim of the study is to characterize the incidence and severity of neuropathic pain in patients with COVID-19.

Methods:

A cohort study will be conducted in adult (≥18 years) patients who were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at Washington University/Barnes-Jewish Hospital. Participants who are deceased, with incomplete test results, or who cannot be contacted will be excluded. Approximately 1320 participants will be recruited in a 1:2 ratio of those with a positive-to-negative SARS-CoV-2 test result. Each participant will be invited to complete a survey to assess their symptoms related to neuropathy, 30 to 90 days after their initial SARS-CoV-2 test. Survey responses, demographics, and clinical data from the electronic health record will be used for analysis. The primary outcome is the incidence of new symptoms of neuropathic pain. The self-reported DN4 and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory questionnaires (Appendix 1, http://links.lww.com/PR9/A103) will be used for neuropathic pain screening and severity assessment, respectively. Exploratory analyses will be performed to investigate other potential clinical endpoints and trends.

Results/Conclusion:

Similar to previous coronavirus infections, an increased incidence of new-onset neuropathic pain after COVID-19 disease is expected, along with an increase in the severity experienced by patients with COVID-19 with pre-existing chronic pain. Comprehensive understanding of how COVID-19 affects the nervous system can provide a better framework for managing pain in this disease.

Chronic pain and cognitive impairment: a cross-sectional study in people living with HIV

Cognitive impairment and chronic pain are amongst the most prevalent neurological sequelae of HIV infection, yet little is understood about the potential bidirectional relationship between the two conditions. Cognitive dysfunction can occur in chronic pain populations whilst those with cognitive impairment can display modified responses to experimentally induced painful stimuli. To date, this has not been explored in HIV cohorts.This study aimed to identify any contribution of chronic pain to cognitive impairment in HIV and to determine differences in pain characteristics between those with and without cognitive dysfunction.This was an observational cohort study involving people living with HIV (n = 148) in the United Kingdom. Participants underwent validated questionnaire-based measurement of pain severity, interference and symptom quality as well as conditioned pain modulation and quantitative sensory testing. All participants completed a computer-based cognitive function assessment.Fifty-seven participants met the criteria for cognitive impairment and 73 for chronic pain. The cognitive impairment group had a higher prevalence of chronic pain (p = 0.004) and reported more neuropathic symptoms (p = 0.001). Those with chronic pain performed less well in emotional recognition and verbal learning domains. The interaction identified between chronic pain and cognitive dysfunction warrants further exploration to identify causal links or shared pathology.

Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for “precision medicine” or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Human immunodeficiency virus-related peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neurological syndromes occur in affected individuals as a consequence of primary HIV infection, opportunistic infections, inflammation and as an adverse effect of some forms of antiretroviral treatment (ART). The aim of this systematic review was to establish the epidemiological characteristics, clinical features, pathogenetic mechanisms and risk factors of HIV-related peripheral neuropathy (PN).

METHODS

A systematic, computer-based search was conducted using the PubMed database. Data regarding the above parameters were extracted. Ninety-four articles were included in this review.

RESULTS

The most commonly described clinical presentation of HIV neuropathy is the distal predominantly sensory polyneuropathy. The primary pathology in HIVPN appears to be axonal rather than demyelinating. Age and treatment with medications belonging in the nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase class are risk factors for developing HIV-related neuropathy. The pooled prevalence of PN in patients naïve to ARTs was established to be 29% (95% CI: 9%-62%) and increased to 38% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29%-48%) when looking into patients at various stages of their disease. More than half of patients with HIV-related neuropathy are symptomatic (53%, 95% CI: 41%-63%). Management of HIV-related neuropathy is mainly symptomatic, although there is evidence that discontinuation of some types of ART, such as didanosine, can improve or resolve symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Human immunodeficiency virus-related neuropathy is common and represents a significant burden in patients' lives. Our understanding of the disease has grown over the last years, but there are unexplored areas requiring further study.

Neuropathic Pain: Mechanism-Based Therapeutics

Neuropathic pain (NeP) can result from sources as varied as nerve compression, channelopathies, autoimmune disease, and incision. By identifying the neurobiological changes that underlie the pain state, it will be clinically possible to exploit mechanism-based therapeutics for maximum analgesic effect as diagnostic accuracy is optimized. Obtaining sufficient knowledge regarding the neuroadaptive alterations that occur in a particular NeP state will result in improved patient analgesia and a mechanism-based, as opposed to a disease-based, therapeutic approach to facilitate target identification. This will rely on comprehensive disease pathology insight; our knowledge is vastly improving due to continued forward and back translational preclinical and clinical research efforts. Here we discuss the clinical aspects of neuropathy and currently used drugs whose mechanisms of action are outlined alongside their clinical use. Finally, we consider sensory phenotypes, patient clusters, and predicting the efficacy of an analgesic for neuropathy.

Pharmacological Management of Painful Peripheral Neuropathies: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a lesion or disease of the peripheral nervous system and is associated with a notable disease burden. The management of PNP is often challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence, derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed pharmacological interventions for the treatment of PNP due to polyneuropathy (PN).

Methods

A systematic search of the PubMed database led to the identification of 538 papers, of which 457 were excluded due to not meeting the eligibility criteria, and two articles were identified through screening of the reference lists of the 81 eligible studies. Ultimately, 83 papers were included in this systematic review.

Results

The best available evidence for the management of painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is for amitriptyline, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin and venlafaxine as monotherapies and oxycodone as add-on therapy (level II of evidence). Tramadol appears to be effective when used as a monotherapy and add-on therapy in patients with PN of various etiologies (level II of evidence). Weaker evidence (level III) is available on the effectiveness of several other agents discussed in this review for the management of PNP due to PN.

Discussion

Response to treatment may be affected by the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that are involved in the pathogenesis of the PN and, therefore, it is very important to thoroughly investigate patients presenting with PNP to determine the causes of this neuropathy. Future RCTs should be conducted to shed more light on the use of pharmacological approaches in patients with other forms of PNP and to design specific treatment algorithms.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40122-020-00210-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pain complications of oral implants: Is that an issue?

The use of oral implants as a form of replacing missing teeth in partial or total edentulous patients is considered the gold standard in oral rehabilitation. Although considered a history of success in contemporary dentistry, surgical complications may occur, as excessive bleeding, damage to the adjacent teeth and mandibular fractures. Persistent pain and abnormal somatosensory responses after the surgery ordinary healing time are also potential problems and may lead to the development of a condition named posttraumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain (PTNP). Though relatively rare, PTNP has a profound impact on patient's quality of life. Appropriated previous image techniques, effective anaesthetic procedures and caution during the surgical procedure and implant installation are recommended for the prevention of this condition. In case of the PTNP, different management modalities, including antidepressant and membrane stabilizer medications, as well as peripheral strategies, as the use of topical medication and the botulin toxin are presented and discussed.

Sensory profiles in women with neuropathic pain after breast cancer surgery

Purpose

We performed a detailed analysis of sensory function in patients with chronic post-surgical neuropathic pain (NP) after breast cancer treatments by quantitative sensory testing (QST) with DFNS (German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain) protocol and bed side examination (BE). The nature of sensory changes in peripheral NP may reflect distinct pathophysiological backgrounds that can guide the treatment choices. NP with sensory gain (i.e., hyperesthesia, hyperalgesia, allodynia) has been shown to respond to Na⁺-channel blockers (e.g., oxcarbazepine).

Methods

104 patients with at least “probable” NP in the surgical area were included. All patients had been treated for breast cancer 4–9 years ago and the handling of the intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN) was verified by the surgeon. QST was conducted at the site of NP in the surgical or nearby area and the corresponding contralateral area. BE covered the upper body and sensory abnormalities were marked on body maps and digitalized for area calculation. The outcomes of BE and QST were compared to assess the value of QST in the sensory examination of this patient group.

Results

Loss of function in both small and large fibers was a prominent feature in QST in the area of post-surgical NP. QST profiles did not differ between spared and resected ICBN. In BE, hypoesthesia on multiple modalities was highly prevalent. The presence of sensory gain in BE was associated with more intense pain.

Conclusions

Extensive sensory loss is characteristic for chronic post-surgical NP several years after treatment for breast cancer. These patients are unlikely to respond to Na⁺-channel blockers.

[Pregabalin and risk of addiction: A new care issue?]

PURPOSE

Pregabalin (PRG) is a gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) analogue used for treatment of epilepsy, neuropathic pain, generalised anxiety disorder and currently being studied for other indications. Supported by the results of case studies and a limited number of studies, there is an ongoing debate about the addictive potential of PRG. However, evidence is scarce and no definitive assessment on the potential for abuse and dependence to PRG is available. The objective of our study was to identify the number of cases of abuse or dependence to PRG published and to study potential risk factors of addiction to PRG.

METHODS

We have identified on PubMed and ScienceDirect published case studies of PRG abuse or dependence and analysed these cases on the basis of several clinical parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 118 cases of PRG abuse or dependence were identified, including 21 isolated cases (mean age 33 years, 67 % men). The mean daily dose of PRG was 2,9 g. Current or past polydrug abuse was present in the majority of cases. Psychiatric diagnoses, other than substance-related disorders, were reported in as many patients, and almost all patients experienced withdrawal symptoms when PRG was discontinued.

CONCLUSION

Current literature suggests an important and growing concern for the abuse of PRG. Male sex, psychiatric and/or addiction history, including opioid addiction, may be potential risk factors for the development of addictive behaviours associated with PRG.

Translational issues in precision medicine in neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain remains poorly treated, with most new drugs falling through the translational gap. The traditional model of bench-to-bedside research has relied on identifying new mechanisms/targets in animal models and then developing clinical applications. Several have advocated bridging the translational gap by beginning with clinical observations and back-translating to animal models for further investigation of mechanisms. There is good evidence that phenotyping of patients through quantitative sensory testing can lead to improved treatment selection and hence improved patient outcomes. This practice has been widely adopted in clinical investigations, but its application in preclinical research is not mainstream. In this review, we retrospectively examine our historical rodent data sets with the aim of reconsidering drug effects on sensory neuronal endpoints, their alignment with clinical observations, and how these might guide future clinical studies.

β-Caryophyllene, a CB2-Receptor-Selective Phytocannabinoid, Suppresses Mechanical Allodynia in a Mouse Model of Antiretroviral-Induced Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain associated with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), therapeutic agents for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), responds poorly to available drugs. Smoked cannabis was reported to relieve HIV-associated neuropathic pain in clinical trials. Some constituents of cannabis (Cannabis sativa) activate cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) and cannabinoid type 2 (CB2) receptors. However, activation of the CB1 receptor is associated with side effects such as psychosis and physical dependence. Therefore, we investigated the effect of β-caryophyllene (BCP), a CB2-selective phytocannabinoid, in a model of NRTI-induced neuropathic pain. Female BALB/c mice treated with 2′-3′-dideoxycytidine (ddC, zalcitabine), a NRTI, for 5 days developed mechanical allodynia, which was prevented by cotreatment with BCP, minocycline or pentoxifylline. A CB2 receptor antagonist (AM 630), but not a CB1 receptor antagonist (AM 251), antagonized BCP attenuation of established ddC-induced mechanical allodynia. β-Caryophyllene prevented the ddC-induced increase in cytokine (interleukin 1 beta, tumor necrosis factor alpha and interferon gamma) transcripts in the paw skin and brain, as well as the phosphorylation level of Erk1/2 in the brain. In conclusion, BCP prevents NRTI-induced mechanical allodynia, possibly via reducing the inflammatory response, and attenuates mechanical allodynia through CB2 receptor activation. Therefore, BCP could be useful for prevention and treatment of antiretroviral-induced neuropathic pain.

Pharmacologic and Non-Pharmacologic Interventions for HIV-Neuropathy Pain. A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Among HIV infection symptoms, sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) remains a main cause of suffering, with incidence varying from 13-50%. So far, numerous pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments have been tested, although few evidence-based analgesic options are available. We conducted an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for pain control, in patients with HIV neuropathy. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus/Elsevier, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), USA Clinical Trials registry, and The International Web of Science up to April 2019. All randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy and safety of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies were included. Efficacy was defined as pain reduction during the study period. Safety was estimated from adverse events. A meta-analysis was performed whenever possible. Results: 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for analysis (7 evaluating non pharmacologic interventions, 20 pharmacologic therapies). Non-pharmacologic studies (n = 742) involved seven different therapeutic modalities. Only Acupuncture/Moxibustion showed pain reduction over placebo, Gracely Pain Scale Mean (SD): Acu/Moxa 0.85 (0.12), placebo 1.10 (0.09), p = 0.05. Pharmacologic studies, involving 2516 patients revealed efficacy for capsaicin 8% over placebo (mean difference -8.04 [95% CI: -14.92 -1.15], smoked cannabis (where pooling data for meta-analysis was not possible) and recombinant Nerve Growth Factor. Conclusion: Despite various modalities for pain control in HIV-SN, strongest evidence exists for capsaicin 8% and smoked cannabis, although of low methodological quality. Among non-pharmacologic modalities, only Acu/Moxa gave a marginal beneficial effect in one study, possibly limited by inherent methodological flaws.

Are perioperative interventions effective in preventing chronic pain after primary total knee replacement? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

For many people with advanced osteoarthritis, total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective treatment for relieving pain and improving function. Features of perioperative care may be associated with the adverse event of chronic pain 6 months or longer after surgery; effects may be direct, for example, through nerve damage or surgical complications, or indirect through adverse events. This systematic review aims to evaluate whether non-surgical perioperative interventions prevent long-term pain after TKR.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of perioperative interventions for adults with osteoarthritis receiving primary TKR evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL until February 2018. After screening, two reviewers evaluated articles. Studies at low risk of bias according to the Cochrane tool were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Perioperative non-surgical interventions; control receiving no intervention or alternative treatment.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain or score with pain component assessed at 6 months or longer postoperative.

RESULTS

44 RCTs at low risk of bias assessed long-term pain. Intervention heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and definitive statements on effectiveness. Good-quality research provided generally weak evidence for small reductions in long-term pain with local infiltration analgesia (three studies), ketamine infusion (one study), pregabalin (one study) and supported early discharge (one study) compared with no intervention. For electric muscle stimulation (two studies), anabolic steroids (one study) and walking training (one study) there was a suggestion of more clinically important benefit. No concerns relating to long-term adverse events were reported. For a range of treatments there was no evidence linking them with unfavourable pain outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

To prevent chronic pain after TKR, several perioperative interventions show benefits and merit further research. Good-quality studies assessing long-term pain after perioperative interventions are feasible and necessary to ensure that patients with osteoarthritis achieve good long-term outcomes after TKR.

The relationship between the reporting of euphoria events and early treatment responses to pregabalin: an exploratory post-hoc analysis

Background

Euphoria is a complex, multifactorial problem that is reported as an adverse event in clinical trials of analgesics including pregabalin. The relationship between the reporting of euphoria events and pregabalin early treatment responses was examined in this exploratory post-hoc analysis.

Methods

Data were from patients with neuropathic or non-neuropathic chronic pain enrolled in 40 randomized clinical trials, who received pregabalin (75–600 mg/day) or placebo. Reports of treatment-emergent euphoria events were based on the Medical Dictionary of Regulatory Activities preferred term “euphoric mood”. Prevalence rates of euphoria events overall and by indication were assessed. Post-treatment endpoints included ≥30% improvements in pain and sleep scores up to 3 weeks as well as a ≥1-point improvement in daily pain score up to 11 days after treatment.

Results

13,252 patients were analyzed; 8,501 (64.1%) and 4,751 (35.9%) received pregabalin and placebo, respectively. Overall, 1.7% (n=222) of patients reported euphoria events. Among pregabalin-treated patients, a larger proportion who reported euphoria events achieved an early pain response compared with those who did not report euphoria (30% pain responders in week 1 with euphoria events [43.0%], without euphoria events [24.2%]). Results were similar for weeks 2 and 3. For Days 2–11, a larger proportion of pregabalin-treated patients with (relative to without) euphoria events were 1-point pain responders. Findings were similar in pregabalin-treated patients for sleep endpoints (30% sleep responders in week 1 with euphoria events [50.7%], without euphoria events [36.1%]). Similar results were found for weeks 2 and 3. Patients who received placebo showed similar patterns, although the overall number of them who reported euphoria events was small (n=13).

Conclusion

In patients who received pregabalin for neuropathic or non-neuropathic chronic pain, those who experienced euphoria events may have better early treatment responses than those who did not report euphoria events.

Somatosensory predictors of response to pregabalin in painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study

Painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a debilitating and treatment-resistant sequela of many chemotherapeutic medications. Ligands of α2δ subunits of voltage-gated Ca channels, such as pregabalin, have shown efficacy in reducing mechanical sensitivity in animal models of neuropathic pain. In addition, some data suggest that pregabalin may be more efficacious in relieving neuropathic pain in subjects with increased sensitivity to pinprick. We hypothesized that greater mechanical sensitivity, as quantified by decreased mechanical pain threshold at the feet, would be predictive of a greater reduction in average daily pain in response to pregabalin vs placebo. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, 26 patients with painful CIPN from oxaliplatin, docetaxel, or paclitaxel received 28-day treatment with pregabalin (titrated to maximum dose 600 mg per day) and placebo in crossover design. Twenty-three participants were eligible for efficacy analysis. Mechanical pain threshold was not significantly correlated with reduction in average pain (P = 0.97) or worst pain (P = 0.60) in response to pregabalin. There was no significant difference between pregabalin and placebo in reducing average daily pain (22.5% vs 10.7%, P = 0.23) or worst pain (29.2% vs 16.0%, P = 0.13) from baseline. Post hoc analysis of patients with CIPN caused by oxaliplatin (n = 18) demonstrated a larger reduction in worst pain with pregabalin than with placebo (35.4% vs 14.6%, P = 0.04). In summary, baseline mechanical pain threshold tested on dorsal feet did not meaningfully predict the analgesic response to pregabalin in painful CIPN.

A Clinical Overview of Off-label Use of Gabapentinoid Drugs

BACKGROUND

The gabapentinoid drugs gabapentin and pregabalin were originally developed as antiseizure drugs but now are prescribed mainly for treatment of pain. For gabapentin, the only pain-related indication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is postherpetic neuralgia. For pregabalin, FDA-approved indications related to pain are limited to postherpetic neuralgia, neuropathic pain associated with diabetic neuropathy or spinal cord injury, and fibromyalgia. Despite these limited indications, gabapentin and pregabalin are widely prescribed off-label for various other pain syndromes. Such use is growing, possibly because clinicians are searching increasingly for alternatives to opioids.

OBSERVATIONS

This report summarizes the limited published evidence to support off-label gabapentinoid uses, describes clinical cases in which off-label use is problematic, and notes how review articles and guidelines tend to overstate gabapentinoid effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians who prescribe gabapentinoids off-label for pain should be aware of the limited evidence and should acknowledge to patients that potential benefits are uncertain for most off-label uses.

A Cost-Effectiveness Model for Adjunctive Smoked Cannabis in the Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Background: A recent meta-analysis affirmed the benefit of medicinal cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain, a disabling and difficult-to-treat condition. As medicinal cannabis use is becoming increasingly prevalent among Americans, an exploration of its economic feasibility is warranted. We present this cost-effectiveness analysis of adjunctive cannabis pharmacotherapy for chronic peripheral neuropathy.

Materials and Methods: A published Markov model comparing conventional therapies for painful diabetic neuropathy was modified to include arms for augmenting first-line, second-line (if first-line failed), or third-line (if first- and second-line failed) therapies with smoked cannabis. Microsimulation of 1,000,000 patients compared the cost (2017 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) of usual care with and without adjunctive cannabis using a composite of third-party and out-of-pocket costs. Model efficacy inputs for cannabis were adapted from clinical trial data. Adverse event rates were derived from a prospective study of cannabis for chronic noncancer pain and applied to probability inputs for conventional therapies. Cannabis cost was derived from retail market pricing. Parameter uncertainty was addressed with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results: Adding cannabis to first-line therapy was incrementally less effective and costlier than adding cannabis to second-line and third-line therapies. Third-line adjunctive cannabis was subject to extended dominance, that is, the second-line strategy was more effective with a more favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $48,594 per QALY gained, and therefore, third-line adjunctive cannabis was not as cost-effective. At a modest willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained, second-line adjunctive cannabis was the strategy most likely to be cost-effective.

Conclusion: As recently proposed willingness-to-pay thresholds for the United States health marketplace range from $110,000 to $300,000 per QALY, cannabis appears cost-effective when augmenting second-line treatment for painful neuropathy. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term benefit of smoked cannabis and standardization of its dosing for chronic neuropathic pain.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

Stratification of neuropathic pain patients: the road to mechanism-based therapy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It has been demonstrated that within one pain entity, patients may report highly heterogenic sensory signs and symptoms. Although mechanism might differ fundamentally between those patients, yet the treatment recommendations are uniform throughout all phenotypes. Therefore, the introduction of new stratification tools could pave the way to an individualized pain treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the past, retrospective stratifications of patients successfully identified responders to certain pharmacological treatments. This indicated predictive validity and reliability of this classification tool in those patient subgroups. Further on, these observations have been confirmed in prospective studies.

SUMMARY

This review focusses on recent achievements in neuropathic pain and suggests a promising implementation of an individualized pharmacological therapy in the future.

Benefits and harms of pregabalin in the management of neuropathic pain: a rapid review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of pregabalin in the management of neuropathic pain.

DESIGN

Rapid review and meta-analysis of phase III, randomised, placebo-controlled trials.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18 years and above with neuropathic pain defined according to the International Association for the Study of Pain criteria.

INTERVENTIONS

Pregabalin or placebo.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Our primary outcomes were pain (as measured using validated scales) and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were sleep disturbance, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change, Clinician Global Impression scale, anxiety and depression scores, overall discontinuations and discontinuations because of adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 28 trials comprising 6087 participants. The neuropathic pain conditions studied were diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, herpes zoster, sciatica (radicular pain), poststroke pain and spinal cord injury-related pain. Patients who took pregabalin reported significant reductions in pain (numerical rating scale (NRS)) compared with placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.32, p<0.00001), very low quality evidence). Pregabalin significantly reduced sleep interference scores (NRS) compared with placebo (SMD -0.38 (95% CI -0.50 to -0.26, p<0.00001), moderate quality evidence. Pregabalin significantly increased the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.44, p<0.00001, low quality evidence)). The risks of experiencing weight gain, somnolence, dizziness, peripheral oedema, fatigue, visual disturbances, ataxia, non-peripheral oedema, vertigo and euphoria were significantly increased with pregabalin. Pregabalin was significantly more likely than placebo to lead to discontinuation of the drug because of adverse events (RR 1.91 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.37, p<0.00001), low quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

Pregabalin has beneficial effects on some symptoms of neuropathic pain. However, its use significantly increases the risk of a number of adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events. The quality of the evidence from journal publications is low.